5 ms·

Tim Sweeney Says the Quiet Part Out Loud

21 points by danaris 5y ago

poetically 5y ago
This guy really likes Apple.
whywhywhywhy 5y ago
This blog was great when Apple was the underdog. Just doesn't work in 2021 (or even the past 5 years), for the same reason I wouldn't read the blog of Goliath's biggest cheerleader either.
- zepto 5y ago
  Seems like you are desperately threatened by the analysis of Tim Sweeney’s posting and want people to ignore it without reading it. I can’t see another reason why you’d write a pure ad-hominem that has literally no connection to the OP. If there is something incorrect in the posting, or you have a counterargument, why not offer it?
  - addicted 5y ago
    The analysis is wrong. Gruber wrongly interprets the word “single” as meaning that there should only be one store and that store should work across all platforms. Whereas what Sweeney is clearly saying is that there should exist at least one store where a consumer can buy a game but play it on any platform. Basically Steam, but across not just PCs and Macs and Linux devices but also the locked down general purpose computers like iOS and Android and even XBox, PS and Nintendo. He does not think that there should only be one such store, and says nothing to suggest that other non Epic owned such stores cannot exist. But Gruber tries to imply that Sweeney is trying to make sure that the Epic store is the only one that can exist. Because without this implication I cannot think of any consumer/free market minded person who would disagree with the idea that if I buy a game, I should be able to play it wherever it can be played, and that I shouldn’t have to repurchase my entire game library because I got a PS instead of an XBox.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - zepto 5y ago
      > The analysis is wrong. Gruber wrongly interprets the word “single” as meaning that there should only be one store and that store should work across all platforms. I think that’s a fair alternative interpretation. > I buy a game, I should be able to play it wherever it can be played, and that I shouldn’t have to repurchase my entire game library because I got a PS instead of an XBox. There is no logic to this whatsoever other. If it costs more to support more platforms (which is does) there is no reason users should expect not to have to pay more. It’s hard to see how creating a world where small developers are expected to do even more work for free, is good for anyone other than a monopolist like Sweeney. The obvious goal here is to make it uneconomical to target anything other than a cross-platform game engine, which of course Epic will provide. Can we stop pretending now that Sweeney wants anything other than to expand his own monopoly?
      - addicted 5y ago
        > There is no logic to this whatsoever other. If it costs more to support more platforms (which is does) there is no reason users should expect not to have to pay more. And why should anyone other than the creator of the product that is being sold decide that? If the Epic storefront does not allow for a developer or publisher to charge more for multiple platforms they can choose not to sell on the Epic store, and continue selling the existing way, or maybe a different storefront. There is no evidence Sweeney wants to expand any monopoly (what monopoly, btw?) other than a deliberate and nonsensical misreading of his statement.
        zepto 5y ago
        >> And why should anyone other than the creator of the product that is being sold decide that? > if I buy a game, I should be able to play it wherever it can be played, and that I shouldn’t have to repurchase my entire game library because I got a PS instead of an XBox. Seems like you want to decide that. > And why should anyone other than the creator of the product that is being sold decide that? If the Epic storefront does not allow for a developer or publisher to charge more for multiple platforms they can choose not to sell on the Epic store, and continue selling the existing way, or maybe a different storefront. This silly argument comes up every time. No, developers obviously won’t be able to just choose what storefronts they like. They will be forced to go to the one storefront that has the customers.
  - whywhywhywhy 5y ago
    Didn't even read it tbh because I don't read Gruber's blog anymore. Used to be a daily read for me.
    - zepto 5y ago
      If we are to beleive you, you posted out of pure ignorance and have no idea what you are talking about.
      - whywhywhywhy 5y ago
        Go back and read my comment, how can it even be ignorant it was just my opinion about the site's angle and Gruber's writing from that angle just doesn't work anymore.
danaris 5y ago
Personally, I'm curious how Sweeney thinks it would work to have a single storefront where people could buy iOS, Xbox, and Switch (etc) games and have them available for all their devices. Is he suggesting that all app makers should be required to make their apps and games cross-platform across all the major current platforms...?
- weare138 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure Sweeney is referring to an app store that supports multiple platforms instead of the current platform specific app stores.
dendrite9 5y ago
So you can decide about reading the post, the statement is: “What the world really needs now is a single store that works with all platforms,” Sweeney said in an interview in Seoul on Tuesday.
- musicale 5y ago
  A single game store that works on all platforms? Interesting. We already have something close to that, and it's called Xbox Game Pass. Works on Windows, Mac, Linux, ChromeOS, iOS, Android, and Xbox (though not on PlayStation and Switch currently at least.) It's also coming to smart TVs if it hasn't already. (And can already sideload it onto a Chromecast.)
  - addicted 5y ago
    That’s essentially what Sweeney is asking for, but broader than the XBox Game pass. The difference is that currently if a certain game exists on iOS, and I have got that through the XBox game pass, I have to buy that game again on iOS to play it offline and without connecting it to the cloud and playing off MS’s servers, even if the game developer would be happy to let you play the proper app version of the game on iOS even if you bought it on XBox. That’s because Apple strictly controls what can and cannot be done on iOS which is the fundamental problem here.
    - musicale 5y ago
      I don't see what's preventing Epic from either partnering with Microsoft (or Google, Amazon, Nvidia...) or creating Epic Game Pass. It would seem that cloud gaming/web gaming is a pretty good workaround on iOS, and a pretty good option on Android as well. Not to mention a good way to play Xbox or PC games that are unlikely to be ported to a smartphone. (I'm reminded of the last console game I played which installed ~35 gigabytes of game data.)
    - musicale 5y ago
      > That’s because Apple strictly controls what can and cannot be done on iOS which is the fundamental problem here. Yet he doesn't seem to be happy with Google either: > Google also earned a strong rebuke from Sweeney, who criticized its approach of charging fees on payments it doesn’t process as “crazy.” > The Google Play Store service fee “has never been simply for payment processing,” Google spokesman Dan Jackson said in an emailed response. “It’s how we provide Android and Google Play for free..." Presumably that's exactly what Apple would do as well, so nothing would change. I kind of feel bad for him so far (I'm sure he cries himself to sleep like most multi-billionaires do) but perhaps he will prevail somehow.
Jyaif 5y ago
And another blog post entirely based on misrepresenting what somebody said. Tim Sweeney doesn't want a unique app store, he wants customers to be able to purchase their apps across all platforms using a single app store.
addicted 5y ago
Gruber’s interpretation of what Sweeney said is ridiculous. Sweeney said there should exist a single store that works across both platforms. As in one store caters both platforms. He did not say that there should be ONLY one store that serves both platforms. I personally think that the existence of a store that can serve both platforms is irrelevant as long as both platforms allow 3rd party stores, and so I don’t agree with Sweeney, but Gruber is completely misinterpreting what he is saying.
stubish 5y ago
A single storefront for all platforms in all regions is likely impossible. But a single registry of purchases would work. Dare I say it, a block chain would even be a good implementation. Store fronts take money and pass it on to the developers, registering the ownership. Then the platform allows installation if the software is available and ownership can be confirmed. All without needing a central database or a bazillion remote APIs to query for every store or publisher.

21 points by danaris 5y ago

This guy really likes Apple.

This blog was great when Apple was the underdog. Just doesn't work in 2021 (or even the past 5 years), for the same reason I wouldn't read the blog of Goliath's biggest cheerleader either.

zepto 5y ago
Seems like you are desperately threatened by the analysis of Tim Sweeney’s posting and want people to ignore it without reading it. I can’t see another reason why you’d write a pure ad-hominem that has literally no connection to the OP. If there is something incorrect in the posting, or you have a counterargument, why not offer it?
- addicted 5y ago
  The analysis is wrong. Gruber wrongly interprets the word “single” as meaning that there should only be one store and that store should work across all platforms. Whereas what Sweeney is clearly saying is that there should exist at least one store where a consumer can buy a game but play it on any platform. Basically Steam, but across not just PCs and Macs and Linux devices but also the locked down general purpose computers like iOS and Android and even XBox, PS and Nintendo. He does not think that there should only be one such store, and says nothing to suggest that other non Epic owned such stores cannot exist. But Gruber tries to imply that Sweeney is trying to make sure that the Epic store is the only one that can exist. Because without this implication I cannot think of any consumer/free market minded person who would disagree with the idea that if I buy a game, I should be able to play it wherever it can be played, and that I shouldn’t have to repurchase my entire game library because I got a PS instead of an XBox.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - zepto 5y ago
    > The analysis is wrong. Gruber wrongly interprets the word “single” as meaning that there should only be one store and that store should work across all platforms. I think that’s a fair alternative interpretation. > I buy a game, I should be able to play it wherever it can be played, and that I shouldn’t have to repurchase my entire game library because I got a PS instead of an XBox. There is no logic to this whatsoever other. If it costs more to support more platforms (which is does) there is no reason users should expect not to have to pay more. It’s hard to see how creating a world where small developers are expected to do even more work for free, is good for anyone other than a monopolist like Sweeney. The obvious goal here is to make it uneconomical to target anything other than a cross-platform game engine, which of course Epic will provide. Can we stop pretending now that Sweeney wants anything other than to expand his own monopoly?
    - addicted 5y ago
      > There is no logic to this whatsoever other. If it costs more to support more platforms (which is does) there is no reason users should expect not to have to pay more. And why should anyone other than the creator of the product that is being sold decide that? If the Epic storefront does not allow for a developer or publisher to charge more for multiple platforms they can choose not to sell on the Epic store, and continue selling the existing way, or maybe a different storefront. There is no evidence Sweeney wants to expand any monopoly (what monopoly, btw?) other than a deliberate and nonsensical misreading of his statement.
      - zepto 5y ago
        >> And why should anyone other than the creator of the product that is being sold decide that? > if I buy a game, I should be able to play it wherever it can be played, and that I shouldn’t have to repurchase my entire game library because I got a PS instead of an XBox. Seems like you want to decide that. > And why should anyone other than the creator of the product that is being sold decide that? If the Epic storefront does not allow for a developer or publisher to charge more for multiple platforms they can choose not to sell on the Epic store, and continue selling the existing way, or maybe a different storefront. This silly argument comes up every time. No, developers obviously won’t be able to just choose what storefronts they like. They will be forced to go to the one storefront that has the customers.
- whywhywhywhy 5y ago
  Didn't even read it tbh because I don't read Gruber's blog anymore. Used to be a daily read for me.
  - zepto 5y ago
    If we are to beleive you, you posted out of pure ignorance and have no idea what you are talking about.
    - whywhywhywhy 5y ago
      Go back and read my comment, how can it even be ignorant it was just my opinion about the site's angle and Gruber's writing from that angle just doesn't work anymore.

danaris 5y ago

Personally, I'm curious how Sweeney thinks it would work to have a single storefront where people could buy iOS, Xbox, and Switch (etc) games and have them available for all their devices. Is he suggesting that all app makers should be required to make their apps and games cross-platform across all the major current platforms...?

weare138 5y ago
I'm pretty sure Sweeney is referring to an app store that supports multiple platforms instead of the current platform specific app stores.

dendrite9 5y ago

So you can decide about reading the post, the statement is: “What the world really needs now is a single store that works with all platforms,” Sweeney said in an interview in Seoul on Tuesday.

musicale 5y ago
A single game store that works on all platforms? Interesting. We already have something close to that, and it's called Xbox Game Pass. Works on Windows, Mac, Linux, ChromeOS, iOS, Android, and Xbox (though not on PlayStation and Switch currently at least.) It's also coming to smart TVs if it hasn't already. (And can already sideload it onto a Chromecast.)
- addicted 5y ago
  That’s essentially what Sweeney is asking for, but broader than the XBox Game pass. The difference is that currently if a certain game exists on iOS, and I have got that through the XBox game pass, I have to buy that game again on iOS to play it offline and without connecting it to the cloud and playing off MS’s servers, even if the game developer would be happy to let you play the proper app version of the game on iOS even if you bought it on XBox. That’s because Apple strictly controls what can and cannot be done on iOS which is the fundamental problem here.
  - musicale 5y ago
    I don't see what's preventing Epic from either partnering with Microsoft (or Google, Amazon, Nvidia...) or creating Epic Game Pass. It would seem that cloud gaming/web gaming is a pretty good workaround on iOS, and a pretty good option on Android as well. Not to mention a good way to play Xbox or PC games that are unlikely to be ported to a smartphone. (I'm reminded of the last console game I played which installed ~35 gigabytes of game data.)
  - musicale 5y ago
    > That’s because Apple strictly controls what can and cannot be done on iOS which is the fundamental problem here. Yet he doesn't seem to be happy with Google either: > Google also earned a strong rebuke from Sweeney, who criticized its approach of charging fees on payments it doesn’t process as “crazy.” > The Google Play Store service fee “has never been simply for payment processing,” Google spokesman Dan Jackson said in an emailed response. “It’s how we provide Android and Google Play for free..." Presumably that's exactly what Apple would do as well, so nothing would change. I kind of feel bad for him so far (I'm sure he cries himself to sleep like most multi-billionaires do) but perhaps he will prevail somehow.

Jyaif 5y ago

And another blog post entirely based on misrepresenting what somebody said. Tim Sweeney doesn't want a unique app store, he wants customers to be able to purchase their apps across all platforms using a single app store.

addicted 5y ago

Gruber’s interpretation of what Sweeney said is ridiculous. Sweeney said there should exist a single store that works across both platforms. As in one store caters both platforms. He did not say that there should be ONLY one store that serves both platforms. I personally think that the existence of a store that can serve both platforms is irrelevant as long as both platforms allow 3rd party stores, and so I don’t agree with Sweeney, but Gruber is completely misinterpreting what he is saying.

stubish 5y ago

A single storefront for all platforms in all regions is likely impossible. But a single registry of purchases would work. Dare I say it, a block chain would even be a good implementation. Store fronts take money and pass it on to the developers, registering the ownership. Then the platform allows installation if the software is available and ownership can be confirmed. All without needing a central database or a bazillion remote APIs to query for every store or publisher.